should have told you. none of these are bad ideas. a lot of them are very good ideas. you have to remind these guys come in the middle of all this, in the middle of all this they're talking about more stimulus, 50 billion, maybe 500 billion topic in number, any number, money we don't have. it's likeomists say they will stay about the same. liz: have a great weekend. david: see ya. melissa: i'm melissa francis and here's what is "money" tonight. whatever you to do don't buy this gasoline. aaa issues a rare warning for e-15 ethanol gas saying it could ruin millions of vehicles and void your warranty. is your car at risk? we have details coming up. plus fast-food workers walking off the job demanding higher wages and their own union. i don't know if they realize therare millions of unemployed workers out there. we'll debate it coming up. is fracking the key to

u.s. energy independence. a new study says absolutely not. is the controversial outlook right? we'll drill down on that one. even when they say it's not it is always about money melissa: first let's take a look at the day's maet headlines. stocks look exhausted after a week of fiscal cliff fueled volatility. the major indices swayed between positive and negative territory closing the day mixed. the dow eked out three points, three. while closing out the month of november down half a percent. you know the global economy is in trouble when even taco bell and kfc have trouble making money, right? shares of their parent company yum! brands dove nearly 10% today. the company warned fourth quarter sales in china, their single best market, would likely slide. u.s. consumer spending fell for the first time since may. the 0.2% decline in october

partially being blamed on the impact of superstorm sandy. why not. starting off tonight, taxes are the talk of the town and have been for daze. seems like much of the conversation isocused on the wealy to get them to pay more. a new study by the tax foundationlips the argument over who really is paying their fair share on its head. the numbers show tax rate paid by individuals in income top 1%, was 23%. all filers in bottom 50%. paid 2%. that is 10 times more. joining me scott hodge. from tax foundation. we have also the founder. sqm management. thanks for joining us. scott, i want to start with you since the numbers are manying from your foundation. what is the average takes rate for our viewers and why did you decide to isolate this metric? >> this is brand new data out of the irs for 2010.

the average for all americans is somewhere around 10 or 11%ut for the wealthiest americans, those in the top 1%, those earning over say $370,000 a year, they're paying over 23% of their income in federal income taxes. as you mentioned, the poorest 50% of americans they pay an average 2% of the their income in taxes. but after all that doesn't include about half of all americans who pay no ince taxes whatsoever. that adds up to 58illion americans with zero income taxes. melissa: average tax rate, looking all money make from dividends, everything you could possibly make and you're taking the average of that paid across. so why do people, what is the difference between that for our viewers who don't understand and this tax rate we're always talking about, raising it from 35 to 39% ruffle? >> right. well the tax ce has six different income tax brackets everything from 10% at the bottom to 35% at the top. sohat isifferent than what we call the average tax rate. when you include take

account for credits and deductions, which everyone gets to take. that brings down your average tax rate from that marginal rate --. melissa: paying last bit of income. >> right. melissa: bob what do you think about this? >> well, i think the bigger issue higher tax rates slow down the economy and in a slow economy as we're facing now to be raising rates even higher, i can't imagine any economist really supporting that, regardless what is going on the fiscal side. melissa: you're sing this is the entire wrong conversation to be having anyway, talking about taking more money away from individuals and giving it to the govnment is not good for the economy no matter what? >> exactly. particularly when the economy is weak. even keynesian economists will tell you that is not the rightime to raise taxes. >> i don't think so. we have a lot of kensyians are saying there is no demand. government has to make up for the demand that doesn't ext from consumers. that means you have to give them money to go out there and spend, no? >> they wld say you spend

but noo say tax at the same time. they would say that will counteract whatever spending you do, the tax increases. i think what you need to do is actually cut spending. at a minimum keep taxes where they are. be betterf you could even reduce them. if you need to raise more revenue do things likes privatizations much better way for the government to get revenue in this type of circumstance. melissa: scott, you make the point that of course the government is going to go out and you know, try to raise taxes on wealthy because they're kind of only ones out there paying taxes. that is the only way to get revenue is get it from the wealthy, right? >> obviously like willie sutton that is where the money is but you have to be extremely careful how you do it because we've looked at the economics and run obama's plan through our economic model and found that for every dollar that it would increase in federal tax revenues it would rrduce gdp by $10. that is a very poor tradeoff as to have higher tax revenues but lower gdp and

economic growth. that's not the direction that we want to head. if you're going to increase taxes we should do it through economic growth. that comes through smart tax policy, not dumb tax policy. melissa: but they always say, if you don't, the wealthy won't miss it. they will just pay a little bit more. it is fair their share. it wil help close the gap. how do you respond to that? >> all of that money is locked up into productive activity whether in a business or the stock market or somewhere else so the more that you tax that income, at means there's less investment, there's less for the business. there is less for hiring. it has to come from somewhere. it is not a costless exercise and ultimately that trickles down to workers through lower productivity and lower wages. that is bad forverydy. that means lower standards of living for everybody. melissa: bob, is there mon difference between money in the hands of the government and money in the hands of the private sector. >> certainly the private sector is better productively. melissa: how do you know that? >> how do i know that? you see that in economies

where private sector activity do more productive over time than economies with large government sectors. soviet union is obviously a extreme case but even in lesser cases look what is going on in europe right now, a large part of that is because very large government sector there. melissa: scott, we have an enormous deficit. how will we close that if we don't get money from the rich? >> i think there are lots of ways to raise revenue. privatization was just mentioned. asset sales. sell off a lot of governnt businesses. let's tax some unproductive things out there, things not already in the tax code. there are lots of difficult ways you can raise revenues without underpining economic growth. melissa: that was a test. the answer was we'll cut spending but that is okay. thanks for both of you joining us. to an important gas warning today that affect anyone with car older than 2012. that is whole lot of people. e15 is higher blend of ethanol and gasoline. it is epa approved and sold

in handful oftates. aaa says don't use it will damage your car engine. that is aaaaying that. at least 10 car companies saying they will not cover any claims of damage due to this fuel, due to e15. it will void your warranty if you use it. here to expla exactly what you need to know is rainshower ren fix of the car coach -- lauren fix. i read this story this morning and i couldn't believe it. this gasoline is out there being so approved by the epa yet you have car company after car cap saying they will not cover fuel related claims, bmw, chrysler, toyota, vw. other car companies says if you use this fuel that is approved and pushed by our government, it is going to void your warranty. ford, hond, kia, mercedes-benz. it will, how is this happening? >> well, the problem is there wasn't a lot of testing done. us in the automotive after-market, i've been

testing this stuff for a long time. there is something clled phase separation. there is all kinds of damage to emission systems and fuel systems in engines. first thing you do not want to pump e15 into your car. it is happening because our cuent government is shing this because there is are corn subsidies going on. a lost money changing hands the bottom line is consumers argoing to be hurt badly if you use this stuff. ictually have proof that it damages fuel lines, emission systems and engines. melissa: why? what i in it that makes it so bad for your car? it is great for the environment i would assume? >> well, it is made from corn. what is happening a lot of farmers are saying you know what? we'll start producing corn rather than other products. that is why your groceries gotten soo expensive. on the other hand what this is very highly corrosive, so corrosive it has to be distributed to gas stations in stainless steel tanks which are hauled by diesel vehicles of all things. but when merged with the gasoline in your gas pump,

wherever you pumpour gas into the vehicle that's when they merge the two gether. what happens is, it is so bad something called phase separation where the ethanol heavier goes to the bottom of the tank. now your vehicle, whether running on e-10 at every gas station ich is mandatory or e15 which they would love to shove down our thoughts. what happens, starts off with separation. your gas tank is drying ethanol. so it destroys fuel systems. i have proof because i talk to companies that manufacture fuel lines. they have brand new vehicles with rotted out fuel systems. they have to produce product they shouldn't be. emission systems when the ethanol is gone, the gasoline is being drawn. hear is the interesting part. it is made three octane levels lower. what that means 87 octane is really 84 octane. that damages your engine because it debt nats -- debt nats. these are serious factors. i really wish before they do this short sight he hadly they look at big picture.

melissa: this is very confusing. i covered this industry for a long time. we were looking at the story in the meaning what a difference between e85 and e15. i don't understand different fuels. i can't imagine for the average person pulling into the gas station and s these things, so tell me, e85 is blend only used in flex-fuel vehicles, right? >> exactly. so if you have a flex-fuel vehicle, no matter what manufacturer you purchased it from e85 is totally fine. you can run e15. melissa: you can? >> e 15 wii is 15% ethanol and e85 which is 85% ethanol but and 15% gasoline. for manufacturers say you use it void the warranty, it is important to know it actually will damage your vehicle. they know it. it actually destroys gaskets too because of the corrosiveness of ethanol on its own. so when you are looking at, i wi save a few pennies.

i buy the e15, in reality it will cost you hundreds possibly thousands of dollars down the road because you have to pay for the repairs. no one will cover that. melissa: can't blame it on evil peoplewho hate the environment. this is aaa out there issuing the warning. you can't say this is conspiracy of some type against farmers, against the fuel industry, whatever it is. it is aaa come out. what is the epa's response to all this at this time? >> well the epa claims that they have done all this testing and it is impossible to do years of testing in months. they said they have done all the testing and claim there is no difference. hear is the other difference that will affect your pocketbook the truth is aaa is trying to help people. i don't work for aaa. i work for aol auto we're totally opposing to each her. the fact when you're looking at cost of what costs you, less than one-third energy per gallon of gasoline that has ethanol in it than regular gasoline didn't have ethanol in it.

what does that mean to you?% filling up at pump more often and pay for the damages that happen to your engine. melissa: if you look at the it, it is true, they dormnalize how many miles you will get out of the gas so you see what it really costs but deceptive when you see it up there, pulling into the gas station the price per gallon doesn't get you the same distance so that is not a fair comparison they say itis cheaper. >> right. melissa: thanks for coming on debunking a lot of different myths. important informion for people that mght accidentally void their warranty and wreck their car. thank you. next on "money", fast-food workers go on strike to try to get their wages supersized. with millions of people out of work this holiday season, poor timing could ruin their case. we'll debate it. is fracking the key to u.s. energy independence? a new study says absolutely not. one environmentalist is here to challenge all that. more money and a few big macs coming up on the other side the break.

♪ .

♪ . melissa: just a week after

wwl-mart employees walked off the job demanding higher paid and the right to form a union now fast-food workers in new york city are doing the exact same thing. it startedat the crack of dawn yesterday and culminated in a rally with hundreds of workers protesting theer at times square but here's the question. is this really the right time to be doing this with the holidays approaching? what about the millions of americans that currently have no job at all? here to discuss both sides are democratic strategist arlene maxwell and republican strategist ford o'connell. i will let you start. these folks are out there protesting. they're not make a lot of money. a lot of people are out of work. what is your take? >> going hungry and starving are two different things, right? these people are making $7.25 an hour which is, barely $300 every week if you're working full-time. a lot of them are limited and not able to even work full time. you shouldn't be working full time and have to live in a homeless shelter as one person interviewed yesterday said.

you can't afford to feed your family. you need enough money for the basic necessities. melissa: ford, you know it is hard to imagine a lot of these people are living in a homeless shelter but at the same time, you know, making $15,000 a year is not enough to live on. that is what minimum wage works out to if you work 40 hours a week. i think these people are working multiple jobs. there is multiple people in the family working. so i mean it just, at end of the day it isot a lot of money. how do you respond to that. >> my heart goes out to them. i understand their frustration but not only is this right time they're not targeting the right folks. most of these fast-food restaurants are individually owned and they're small business owners who are in compliance with the law and providing jobs. look, most small, most restaurants basical net about $88,000 a year. and on to be of that y a load fee to be part of franchise which comes out to $450,000. it takes folks about five years just to break even on this investment. in my opinion they're small business owners providing a

public good and if the protesters want to take it up with someone take it up with the state government or national headquarters. you're targeting the wrong folks. melissa: there are some good points in there. the problem that people own the restaurants, franchise owners are not making a mint. they're forced to raise the minimum wage not like, where is the money going to come from? they will have fewer workers working there or raise the price of the food. maybe the answ is not to have fast-food and to only have expensive food. no matter how you cut it the money has to come from somewhere? >> i think about the ceo's and people in the corporate headquarters and profits have been gone up for wendy he is and kfc, 50%, mcdonald's 130%. these people are making money hand over fist. melissa: but tse are franchise owners. >> franchise owners providing jobs. >> they can give back to the workers. they don't need to make millions and millions while workers are starving. they need labor to become profitable. melissa: ford, do you buy

that argument? no one at mcdonald's making millions and millions of dollars. you have the franchise owners, raise the minimum wage, say that is true. raise the minimum wage, they will raise price of cheeseburger. >> that is exactly right. they will pass onto the consumer. these are low bear remember entry jobs i'm not sure a mac job is supposed to be a career. the fact you work flex hours you spud send spending spare ti working on your skills going to community college or exercise more personal responsibility here. melissa: go ahead. >> what money are you going to community college? how are you paying tuition when you can barely afford food, rent, transportation. >> you can afford community college. melissa: that is whole different discussion. that is why we have the student loan crisis. >> get the entry level job you want to strive and do better and have a career. you can't afford to do anything. can't afford transportation and child care necessary to get to the job. melissa: what about the idea, if you raise the wage there

will be fewer people working at mcdonald's. is it better to have more people working than more people on unemployment line? >> i don't know the exact answer. i don't know if that is the solution. i do know the people are not making enough. mcdonald can afford to pay them more. melissa: real quick. >> raise the wage bottom line pass on consumer. if consumer cuts back they close the door and we'll not have jobs. it is that simple. melissa: we'll agree to disagree. i hope you both come back. coming up on "mone a new study torches the fracking boom. saying it is no road to u.s. independence. one environmentalist is saying it is dead wrong. gop version of blood vessel over the president obama's fiscal cliff proposal. is it that much of a raw deal as they claim? we'll break it down. do you ever have too much money or too many big macs? ♪

♪ . melissa: the idea of u.s. energy independence may be music to your ears but is fracking the way toet there? a new report fm the food and water watch, says if that i what you think, think again. they say the real answer is investing in renewable energy because increasing prucon of natural gas will only continue dependence on fossil fuels. we have a the environmental thast that is big defender of fracking. he tells us why it is a key to the energy independence. thanks for coming back on the show. >> thank you for having me back. melissa: what do you think about fracking is evil? are you convinced? >> no. they're making two different claims. one is energy independence essentially we're more robust against disruptions from our supply.

there are two ways to think about it. if you're worried about disruptions, go to coal that is not what anyone is suggesting. instead we should go for cheap gas. even then if you get disruptions it will be much less disruptive to your economy. melissa: they're saying it is a false claim to say that we have a 100 years worth of natural gas stored away if we only unleash it through acking. number one they're saying overestimation of the actual deposits. in truth it is usually underestimation. regardless, they think it is overestimation. if we really going for it the way we are going to that means it is only 50 years. >> yeah. we've been making these kinds of studies for almost 100 years. when you look how much is there, as you pointed out, you think there is way less than what is really there when you start looking. sure, we're going to use more and more of that energy. we'll use more and more gas because it is so cheap. that means there will be less than what people originally say so. maybe it is not 100 but

maybit goes to 50 but we'll find a lot more and we'll have much more technology which will make it likly 100 or even more. but the ultimate point is it takes away from green energy. that is what they're really annoyed about. we don't invest in solar and wind and all the other stuff. melissa: it might, right? >> absolutely. right now, we're, essentially investing in solar and wind because we have hu government subsidies across the industrialized world. melissa: right. >> but thais not sustainable. nobody can actually afford that. germany is one of the leaders basically had to cut back dramatically because they can't afford it when it started counting. melissa: they say every energy industry at beginning needs to be propped up by the govement until it is viable then it is viable. way we started everything else. why is that wrong? >> the problem we've been saying that for 30 or 40 years and it hasn't really happened. the point here gas actually, and fracked gas offers the opportunity tout carbon emissions dramatically. melissa: how is that possible? >> fundamentally gas emits

40% less than coal for the same amount of energy. and so you produce most of your energy in the u.s. with coal. now you're moving towards gas. that is a great tng for the environment. actually, you have cut twice as much as what everyone else in the world including the kyoto protocol and all the e.u. instead of what the e.u. is paying 20, $30 billion a year to do that, you're making $100 billion a year. that is much better proposition. melissa: is all the fracking distracting us from the idea of developing these other sources of renewable energy? >> no. i think it is buying us time because eventually we will be switching to wind and solar and all these other green technologies once they become sufficiently cheap but gas provides us that bridge for a couple of decades, we can actually use gas instead of coal. we can be much cleaner. they're right it is not a clean fuel but it is a much eaner fuel. that means we can get to a point where we will eventually transition to green energy. so it is actually a plus plus. melissa: all right.

i think they would be really miffed to hear you say that. i'm sure they're watching. i'm sure they love the show. thanks so much for coming on. >> time for today's fuel gauge report. oil rose more than 1% on the last day of trading in november. fuel prices for the month climbed 3%. interior department will sell the first competitive leases for offshore wind farms. the lease areas cover 430 square miles of the coast of rhode island, massachusetts and virginia. the lease sales are scheduled to take place next year. the u.s. army corps of engineers says it will speed up measures to keep the mississippi river open to barge traffic. lingering effects from this summer's drought are bringing water levels to dangerously low levels, threatening to halt commercial traffic. western libya's biggest oil refinery restarted operations. protests shut down the refinery yesterday. that is the second time that happened this month. the plant refines up to 120,000 barrels of crude per

day. president obama's fiscal cliff plan has fiscal hawks raging perhaps none more than the man on your screen right now. is the president's plan truly that bad? look he is throwing away money. don't do that. i will come take it. >> the president is. melissa: oh, right. okay. don't throw away the money. that is jonathan hoenig. he is coming up next. plus the newest move to stop hundreds of millions of dollars of gold coming into iran every month. we'll tell you how. "piles of money" in that trashcan, i'm going to get it but no gold coming up. ♪ .

>> there's a stalemate. let's not kid ourselves. melissa: i feel gooood about that. that wa house speaker john boehner today putting to rest the idea that a fiscal cliff deal is on its way. some angry lawmakers are now saying the last three weeks have been a complete waste and that president obama's new detailed proposal is a total non-starter. hedge fund manager jonathan hoenig agrees. he joins us to tell us why he thinks the president's plan rests entirely punishing the minority, that is the rich. thanks for having you back on the show. >> hello, melissa.

melissa: this is depressing topic you will make it light and happy for us somehow. >> there is nothing happy about wealth destruction that is exactly what president is doing. you raised a very important point. why is it the president's plan to fix the economic calamity specifically reinvolves hurting minority, as you point out the so-called rich? redistribution is once again the center of his proposal. it is not only immoral but impractical as well. we're talking about 1.6 dro trillion coming out of the economy, coming out of invests, not being put into new jobs and new businesses being sent to washington instead. melissa: it is not really in the spirit of making a deal when you come out and say, i will double the amount of tax increas that i said i was looking for, the amount of revenue. iwill double what that is. by the way i will add in spending. republicans you can just suck it. that is basically. people just, everyone just sort of flipped out. >> you're right. what kind of a proposal or

compromise is this? new programs, $50 million on mortgages, billion dollars on mortgage assistance and infrastructure, make-work programs. melissa: yeah. >> this notion to eliminate the debt limit, melissa, essentially clearing the way for unlimited growth of government. i've got to tell you i think that is what the president believes. melissa: i do too. >> yeah. he always believed in my opinion that government spending creates wealth. so of course the more money the government can get the more wealth in thinks mind can be created certainly last four years have shown us not the case. melissa: maybe we're wrong? is there any chance that is true and this is the path to prosperity and everything will be okay? no, huh? what do you think? >> history does not play that out, melissa. the thing that is needed of course is to stop the spending. the problem is, not that we don't have enough taxes. we have too much spending. it is pretty ironic that the president's proposal has no net spending cuts. if spending is the problem why does the proposal have no new spending cuts? we need more than anything

is economic freedom. that is nowhere on the president's, meaning on the left's docket atall. melissa: if we all ran our households like this, so the bills are rolling in and you can not possibly pay them and you're facing this date when you know for sure you can't pay your bills, not only wl you get thrown out of house but get thrown off a cliff. instead of cutting back onon spending and saying, guys, listen we've got to really tighten our belts instead you say we'll cut up the credit card and get rid of the debt limit and we'll spend even more. i have mean it makes, none ofus would run our families like this. >> yeah i think unfortunately the government has the guns so they have the ability to look around the count and say, who do i want to make a sacrifice? who will take the hit for so-called greater good that is continuing this disasterous entitlement state? government in my opinion needs to make sacrifices across the board. unfortunately again the present's program seems to go back to that old chestnut, tax the rich and keep spending in washington,

d.c.. meliss even that, even if they have all the gs in the world and come and confiscate all the wealth from the top% it doesn't close the gap. if they get the tax increases that they want on the top two tax brackets is only brings in enough revenue to run the government for a week and a half. this whole thing about getting wealthy to pay their fair share so we can pay our bills is a false argument any way because i doesn't come close to solving the problem. >> the math, you're right, the math does not add up in the least bit. you alluded to it a little bit, melissa. there is scuttlebutt in washington a direct wealth tax might be next on the docket. there is that sense, anything goes. i menti also specificall i am a investor. i'm a hedge fund manager. this notion of taxing capital gains and dividends, we all want wealth, but when you tax capital gains and dividends like taxes oxygen. taxing exact wealth we want to create not just for the rich 1% but for the country as greater hold. melissa: all you can do is buy gold to hide i it uder

yo bed. god forbid you make a buck. jonathan i want the ashcan and cash in it i will get it after the show. >> i going to buy your book with it. melissa: fantastic. perfect. up next yet another round of sanctions to hit iran where it counts. this time going right for the heart of its economy and its gold. we're going to explain that. at the eed of the day it is all about money. ♪ .

man: constant tingling in my toes. woman: i had double vision. woman: they said, "you have multiple sclerosis." man: i kind of had to get a grasp on reality. man: i had to adapt and change very rapidly. woman: i had to learn how to driveith my hands -- yeah, that was interesting. man: a symptom may cause you not to be able to do that anymore, and at one point, i was able to do any of those. man: since i've been cycling, it's definitely helped my walking. woman: it's a fantastic opportunity to be working together with a common goal

of curing ms, and sharing is the key.

he ♪ . melissa: talk about going for the gold. that is exactly what is happening with a new round of u.s. sanctions against iran approved today by an overwhelming senate majority. it is an effort to put an end to iran's gas for gold trade with turkey. that is one of the stories we were one of the first to report on "money." stopping hundreds of millions of dollars of gold going to iran each month could add a crippling new twist to the economy. here to discuss the impact. michael rubin, iranian expert used to work at the pentagon. now work at the american

enterprise institute. thanks for coming on the show. >> thanks for having me. melissa: do you think they will be successl in this? do you think sancons aimed at ending flow of gold into iran will really work first of all? >> sanctions itself isn't going to reverse the determination of iran to, get a nuclear weapons capability. but what we're doing is applying increasingly amounts of pressure on iran and about a year ago t senate voted 100-0 to impose banking sanctions on iran and there is very little from which we can get such bipartisan unty. what happens is iran started sending oil, sending gas to turkey in exchange for gold and so what the cop guess is doing now, again with the unanimous vote, the senate, that is, is to try to plug this last hole. if precedent is to be believed it will increase pressure a huge amount. melissa: but you know turkey wants that natural gas.

that is why they're paying in gold. so i mean how realistic is it that we can actually stop them from doing this, from buying it and giving them gold? >> certainly iran isn't the ooly country in the world which sells oil and which sells gas. what we need to be doing is encouraging turkey it look elsewhere to purchase its gas. the whole reason why there have been waivers on the previous rounds of sanions have been to give countries which are making a good-faith effort to untangle their finances from iran the ability to do so and find another partner. almost every other country has pulled away from iran with the exception of turkey which has been basically cheating. now the sanctions aren't going to work unless there is unity and the alternative to sanctions working would be far worse, not only for the united states and the western economies but for security in the region. messa: but problem is iran has a massive amount of natural gas. they desperately need the money. they need to fund their

programs. they're being choked by the sanctions. so they're going to sell it to turkey at whatever below market price. that is the same thing they have been doing with oil. turkey desperately needs it. they are their neighbor. it is right there. it seems like the economics drive that situation and we would have to basically pay turkey to not take that gas? >> well, ultimately what we're doing is what we did with germany, what we did with japan, trying to convince them that there's a better way to do this and that it is in their financial interests not to be conducting this trade with iran. melissa: so only way we would do that is giving them money or subsidizing natural gas for turkey coming from somewhere else. >> not at all. melissa: go ahead. >> what we're trying to do is apply coercion. we're trying to sanction and make illegal the trade and if we do that, turkey can choose between doing business with iran and doing business with the rest of the world rather than acting like a predator and trying to take advantage when all the other countries pu

back from iran. melissa: yeah. >> remember, should there be a military conflict with iran the effect on the turkish economy will be far more deleterious than taking united front now. melissa: tha a great point. michael, thanks so much for coming on. >> thank you. melissa: next on "money", forget music, it is all money to artists ears. forbes reveals the highest paid musician in the world. you will be surprised who it is. we have details who is dancing to $100 million beat. you can never have too much money. ♪ .

it will and in and in >> celebrities and musicians,

those blowing all the money, time after time committee would hear about them going broke after they made all this money now. they are making the right decisions. they are making more money, you can look at ashtn kutcher who is in a fight and over all this money, he made a lot of smart decisions and he made a lot of money. of partying and womanizing. >> yes, this is absolutely fantastic. you did the right thing. melissa: a kansas city businessman who prefers to be nameless is giving away $100,000 this season.

he hopes to give away all of this money before the holiday season ends. he went to a relief center where they were working with hurricane sandy victims and he gave the money as well. it is such a touching story. >> it is a beautiful story. >> it is a wonderful holiday stor it is great o see a real-life hero like that. i love that he wants to give his money away before he dies. how generous of heart and spirit as that. >> he doesn't want us to know who he is, right? it's not about publicity, he's doing it out of the kindness of his heart. >> i gave out 10 singles on the train -- does that count? melissa: yes, it does count. >> they had to do something for it, they were dancing and everything else we want okay, you lost me. talk about a flip-flop. this self-proclaimed romney supporter was paid $5000 by someone on ebay to get the romney-ryan logo tattooed on his face.

yikes. after insisting that hewould never regret it. he now wants to get it removed, claiming that mitt romney was a sore loser after the election. who do you guys think the sore losers? >> i have one line for this, you cannot fix stupid. [laughter] this guy is an idiot. why would you have a tattoo like that? melissa: provided you have political slogan on your face? >> consider the source. if one of his behaviors is flip-flopping -- melissa: ep $5000. >> i think it is ludicrous. the guy, i gave him back the money that he got off of ebay. he didn't put those into the bargain. secondly, i think you ought to have to pay for it. my mother always told me that you made your bed and you have to lie in it. >> that is a heck of a bed to

make. melissa: all right, if you you want to know the secret to happy marriage? apparently you have to make sure that the husband gets along with the in-laws. if the husband feels close to the mosque, the chance of divorce is 20% lower than average print when the wife reported being closer to in-laws, the risk of divorce was 20% higher. i don't understand that. [talking over each other] vmax i love your parents. they are wonderful people. don't we all love our in-laws? [laughter] >> it is sort of true. the family seems to migrate to the wife's side of the family. melissa: i am close to my mother-in-law. >>ow you are in danger. melissa: yes, now it's crazy. >> it depends on whether she is a mettler are not.

melissa: tom sullivan has a few words of wisdom for us on the fiscal cliff. >> i can't believe the hype surrounding the fiscal cliff. this is a mess created by congress. we are asking the same people to clean up this mess and all the others that we keep creating. you know the numbers. congress is spending a trillion dollars more each year than with the treasury brings in. the tax the rich idea brings in about $100 billion. that leaves us still at about 900 billion short of revenues. then what? welcome this past week i saw three balloons. one was to reduce or eliminate the mortgage deduction. other was deductions for attorneys, and the third was to figure out some way to get attacks on your 401k. i bet you that the fuel tax deduction, but that goes away as well. meaning that yr take-home pay in january will be less. don't be shocked. do youthink they would stop